James Adair: Lord Protector of Scottish Morality

Few names will stir the emotions amongst LGBT Scots, who were alive during the deliberations of the Wolfenden Committee, than James Adair OBE. Adair wasn’t the only Scot to sit alongside John Wolfenden, but he is probably the most in/famous. He was to disagree fundamentally with the recommendations of the committee regarding homosexual offences and produced a minority report that questioned the moral reasoning of decriminalising homosexual acts between men.

James Adair
James Adair c.1957

In the 2007 BBC 4 drama, Consenting Adults, Adair was played as a somewhat disagreeable and pompous man, by the actor Sean Scanlan. Just how pompous and disagreeable he was is difficult to ascertain as we know so very little about this former procurator-fiscal, who had a long and successful career as a prosecutor. What we do know is that he was an elder of the Church of Scotland who grabbed many column inches through his unwavering opposition to homosexual law reform. He lived to see the change in law in England and Wales in 1967, and in Scotland in 1980, as he died in January 1982 at the ripe old age of 95 (this is despite being ‘killed off’ by Lord Ferrier – Victor Noel Paton – in a debate regarding homosexual law reform in Scotland, in 1977). Adair outlived his wife Isabel, by 32 years.

The purpose of this blog post is to flesh out the rather one dimensional view we have of Adair, whose portrait above does little to add personality or vigour to the name. Born in Barrhead in 1886, Adair was the eldest son of William, an iron turner and Catherine, and he grew up in George Street and Barnes Street, Barrhead. On leaving school at 13, young Adair took employment as a clerk in a local legal office. Adair was obviously motivated by this early exposure to the legal profession, as he studied law at Glasgow University, eventually qualifying as a solicitor in 1909, and entering private practice in criminal defence, serving his apprenticeship with Glasgow solicitors Brownlie, Watson & Beckett. In 1919, at the instruction of J. D. Strathern, he was appointed procurator-fiscal depute, with his first case, the George Square Riots of 1919. In 1933, a year after he transferred to Edinburgh,  he was involved in the Kosmo Club trial regarding ‘immoral earnings’. In 1937, he succeeded Strathern as procurator-fiscal at Glasgow.

Adair had a particular interest in morality, perhaps fostered by his membership of the Church of Scotland, and was associated with the National Vigilance Association of Scotland, particularly during the period of WWII, when he was delighted to announce to the NVAS that in Scotland the war had resulted in very few ‘fallen women’. Away from his legal and moral duties, Adair was to build a reputation as an entertaining public speaker on topics such as; Old Glasgow Streets, Old Glasgow Characters, and Edinburgh Life. He also had a long association with the Scottish Burns Federation (I wonder what he made of Burns’ ‘interesting’ sexual life), and with the Young Men’s Christian Association (he was the chairman of the Scottish National Council & from 1962, World President).

But it was Wolfenden that pushed Adair onto the public stage. Adair’s greatest fear was that law reform would have a devastating effect on the young in Scotland (Lord Arran appears to have picked up this particular baton recently). He stated that: “The presence in a district of…adult male lovers living openly and notoriously…is bound to have a pernicious effect on the young people of that community”. Adair’s proclamations of doom were seized upon by the Scottish press, with The Bulletin & Scots Pictorial lauding his input: “We should be glad if the things discussed…could be wiped out altogether…There is not much doubt that this disgusting vice has been becoming…more ‘fashionable’…”. The Scotsman took a similar editorial stance, and the Daily Record could barely conceal its outrage. Speaking at the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in 1958, Adair caused panic in the cloisters by claiming that within weeks of the publication of the Wolfenden Report, a homosexual ‘club’ in London, offering information on meeting places including public lavatories, had received nearly 50 applications for membership, and in one square mile of London there were over 100 male prostitutes offering depraved services. Adair’s fear was that any change in law would enable ‘perverts to practice sin for the sake of sinning’ in Scotland.

Yet, there was an element of mendacity about Adair’s claims. He would have known, first hand, that homosexual prostitution was already thriving in Scotland by the turn of the 20th century and by the 1920s there were organised groups of male prostitutes operating in Glasgow – a city, he had previously hinted, with a a greater attraction for gay men. In reality Adair was upset that the previous policy of ‘silence’ regarding same-sex desire in Scotland was under threat, and by emphasising the potential for moral turpitude, he hoped to consign homosexual law reform in Scotland to the dustbin. In any event this was what effectively happened due to the peculiarities of Scots Law. Adair became a representative, a figurehead, for moral objections to homosexual law reform in Scotland, and would have been quietly satisfied that within a few months of the publication of the Wolfenden Report, Scottish silence had been restored (albeit to be resurrected in the mid 1960s, but with a similar result). Adair, his job done, could retire into relative obscurity, appearing now and again from his home in Pollokshields to offer a talk on old Glasgow, or to attend meetings of The Galloway Association of Glasgow.

Copyright © Jeff Meek 2013

All Rights Reserved.

Equal Marriage, Religion, and Schisms

Part of my doctoral thesis utilised oral history to capture the thoughts and experiences of gay and bisexual men (GBM) who lived (and loved) in Scotland prior to the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980. This legislation brought legal equity between Scotland, and England and Wales where similar legislation had brought about limited decriminalization of homosexual acts in 1967. In effect, crossing the border into Scotland in 1968 left gay male travellers under the threat of legal sanctions (although in reality this was unlikely for most GBM who preferred the bedroom to the ‘cottage’ or park).

As these interviews were conducted in 2007, 3 years after civil partnerships had become legal for same-sex couples, part of my questioning dealt with the potential for further civil rights being extended to include religious marriage. Only 2 of the 24 men I interviewed believed that such an extension of rights was possible within their lifetime (both men were in their late 50s), thus, I imagine that the other 22 will have have expressed surprise and delight that there now exists  potential for equal marriage rights to be extended to non-heterosexuals in Scotland.

The root of their pessimism undoubtedly lay in the, historically, rather frosty relationship between Scotland’s main churches and non-heterosexual Scots. Although it would be incorrect to suggest that these institutions were responsible for the delay in bringing legal equity between Scotland and its southern neighbours much of the objections voiced in the aftermath of the publication of the ‘Wolfenden Report’ came from religious groups and individuals (most prominently displayed by James Adair, the former procurator fiscal, elder of the Church of Scotland, and member of the Wolfenden Committee who equated gay men with merciless sexual predators). The Church of Scotland was for over a decade vehemently opposed to any lifting of legal sanctions, and the minor Scottish churches (protestant conservatives) felt that any relaxation in the law would lead to God reaching into his armoury for fresh bolts of lightning and plagues of locusts.

Jump forward 50 years and the news that the Church of Scotland is now permitting the ordination of gay ministers is positive but was always likely to encourage the fear of schism that has haunted the Anglican community. News that two congregations in Lewis are contemplating leaving the church can be no real surprise to religious and cultural historians north of the border. The language used by representatives of these two communities is remarkably similar to that heard in the late 1950s. Take, for example, Kinloch minister, the Rev Iain Murdo Campbell:

“If the word of God had the authority, which it should have, the question and debate should not have been in the General Assembly in the first place.” http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-22715004

Of course, the Church’s decision (still to be ratified by the Assembly) does not in fact mean that the institution is liberally embracing religious gay Scots who wish to answer ‘the call’. It is simply suggesting that the church will maintain its traditional approach to sexuality (valorising heterosexuality and sex within ‘traditional’ marriage) but will permit ‘liberal’ congregations to appoint gay ministers who are in a civil partnerships. It’s a change, of course, and a positive one, but it’s not revolutionary by any stretch. But one piece at a time.

The minor churches have been consistent in their objections which roughly accord with their 1950s statements. According to the BBC a Free Church of Scotland spokesman claimed: “We don’t understand what’s going on in the Church of Scotland, and suspect the vast majority of the Scottish public don’t have a Scooby (!) either. We believe that Scotland needs the guidance of the national church rooted in the teachings of the Bible, irrespective of public opinion and pressure to conform.” http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-22580322

The mention of public opinion is, of course, a hot potato. There again the minor churches have been consistent – they saw no value in bowing to public opinion regarding homosexual law reform in the 1950s and 60s (albeit that the Scottish popular press of that period were very much anti-law reform). It would be safe to suggest that these churches will staunchly oppose any form of state interference in the definition of marriage. But, this begs the question, who should define what marriage is? In a secular society we look to government to direct and to react (but not be reactionary), rather than the church. In civil affairs and any decision should not be at the mercy solely of public opinion, but what is right; what brings greater benefits to society and to the individual and surely levelling the playing field and equalising citizenship rights for all is for the greater good.

Considering the difficult relationship Scotland had had in the past with its LGBT citizens it is surprising to see equality so prominently valued. But it’s a pleasant and positive surprise, a feeling most likely to be shared by the GBM I interviewed just 6 years ago, when full legal equality seemed so unlikely. But it is just one further step, and prejudice will not be eliminated until discrimination ceases to be justified by an appeal to tradition, religious or otherwise.

Copyright © Jeff Meek 2013

All Rights Reserved.